In practical terms, the notion of “civil asset recovery” denotes the entirety of private law mechanisms by means of which a person – whether a creditor, victim, contractual counterparty or the State acting as the holder of a civil claim – restores to his or her patrimony an asset or its monetary equivalent, on the basis of a substantive right (contractual or tortious liability, unjust enrichment, property rights or security interests). Such steps are pursued through civil procedure, including interim protective measures and, ultimately, enforcement proceedings. Although, in practice, civil recovery frequently interacts with criminal proceedings (for example, through the exercise of civil claims within criminal trials), its normative foundation remains essentially civil and procedural in nature.

The principal legal basis is provided by the substantive rules enshrined in the Civil Code, which govern the creation, content and protection of civil rights, read in conjunction with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, which establish the framework for the preservation of assets pending the final determination of the dispute, the obtaining of an enforceable title, and its enforcement.

As regards enforcement, which constitutes the final stage of the recovery process, the general rules are set out in Book V of the Civil Procedure Code. As a matter of principle, obligations are to be performed voluntarily; failing that, compulsory enforcement may be pursued in the forms prescribed by law until full satisfaction of the right embodied in the enforceable title, including interest and costs. Enforcement is, as a rule, carried out by a judicial enforcement officer, save for public budgetary claims, which are subject to a distinct regime. The commencement of enforcement proceedings requires the existence of an enforceable title and the authorisation of the competent court, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Civil Procedure Code.

Within the logic of asset recovery, interim measures play a crucial role, as they allow the preservation of the debtor’s assets prior to or during the proceedings, thereby preventing the judgment from being deprived of practical effect. A precautionary attachment may be sought, including by a creditor who does not yet hold an enforceable title, subject to the conditions laid down in the Civil Procedure Code, namely the existence of a written and due claim, proof that substantive proceedings have been initiated and, where appropriate, the provision of security. Furthermore, challenges to enforcement and mechanisms for the suspension of enforcement ensure a balance between the creditor’s rights and the debtor’s procedural guarantees, thereby contributing to the stability and lawfulness of the recovery process.

From the perspective of substantive law, civil recovery is grounded in mechanisms such as contractual and tortious liability, restitution of performances, unjust enrichment, proprietary actions (such as claims for recovery of property), and instruments designed to neutralise fraudulent transactions concluded to the detriment of creditors, including the revocatory (Paulian) action and actions based on simulation. In practice, these institutions operate in conjunction with interim measures and enforcement proceedings so as to secure effective recovery.

Civil asset recovery frequently intersects with special statutory regimes. In insolvency matters, the recovery of claims is subject to specific rules governing the avoidance of fraudulent transactions and the distribution of assets, under the supervision of the insolvency judge. In the case of public budgetary claims, fiscal enforcement follows a distinct regime administered by the competent tax authorities. Systems of publicity and opposability of rights (the land register, security registers and other public records) are likewise essential in establishing priority and safeguarding rights vis-à-vis third parties.

At the institutional level, the administration of frozen assets is governed by Law No. 318/2015, which established the National Agency for the Administration of Frozen Assets (ANABI). Although its activity is primarily associated with criminal proceedings, the mechanisms for the administration and disposal of frozen assets indirectly affect the efficiency of asset recovery, including in its civil dimension.

The National Agency for the Administration of Frozen Assets (ANABI) becomes relevant to a private party where the asset over which that party holds or asserts a right – whether ownership, a security interest, a claim, a right of retention, another real right or a legitimate interest – has already been made subject to a freezing measure ordered in a framework other than ordinary civil proceedings, most commonly within criminal proceedings. In such circumstances, the asset is taken into ANABI’s administration on the basis of an act issued by the competent authority, namely a judicial body. Accordingly, a private individual does not “use” ANABI as a civil recovery instrument stricto sensu; rather, he or she may enter into legal relations with the Agency in its capacity as administrator or disposer of a frozen asset which, as a result of the measure imposed, is temporarily removed from the civil circulation and may no longer be freely transferred.

A significant role in the identification and traceability of assets is played by the legislative framework on the prevention and combating of money laundering, as established by Law No. 129/2019. Obligations relating to customer due diligence, reporting and transaction monitoring facilitate the detection of financial flows and support, directly or indirectly, recovery efforts. Similarly, the regime of international sanctions, which may entail the freezing or blocking of funds, produces patrimonial effects relevant to the preservation stage of asset recovery.

Within the context of European Union law, asset recovery has a dual dimension: on the one hand, cooperation in criminal matters concerning freezing and confiscation, recently strengthened by Directive (EU) 2024/1260; on the other hand, mechanisms of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters, which facilitate the cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments, including instruments such as the European Account Preservation Order and European civil enforcement titles.

At international level, Romania applies relevant conventional instruments, including the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC), and Council of Europe conventions concerning money laundering and the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. In addition, the European Convention on Human Rights constitutes a fundamental benchmark, as any asset recovery measure must comply with the guarantees relating to the right to a fair trial and the protection of property.

In conclusion, the legal framework governing civil asset recovery in Romania is founded upon the core normative structure of the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Code, supplemented by special regimes (insolvency, fiscal enforcement, publicity of rights), institutional mechanisms concerning the administration of frozen assets, and European and international instruments facilitating the tracing, preservation and recovery of assets, including on a cross-border basis.

In Romanian law, in principle, any asset or proprietary right forming part of a debtor’s patrimony and having economic value may be subject to civil recovery proceedings, provided that it is transferable and capable of enforcement under the law. The governing principle is that of universal liability of the debtor’s patrimony, subject to statutory exemptions for assets declared immune from enforcement.

(i) Immovable property: Land, buildings and other immovable assets registered in the Land Register may be subject to real estate enforcement proceedings, including attachment and sale by public auction. Land registration plays a central role in establishing priority between creditors and ensuring enforceability against third parties.

(ii) Tangible movable property: Vehicles, equipment, machinery, stock, valuable goods, artworks and other movable items may be seized and sold through movable enforcement proceedings.

(iii) Cash and bank accounts: Garnishment (poprire) is the primary mechanism for pursuing funds held in bank accounts or owed to the debtor by third parties. Credit institutions are required to freeze amounts up to the value of the claim and transfer them to the creditor in accordance with statutory procedure.

(iv) Securities and financial instruments: Shares, bonds and other financial instruments (including dematerialised securities) may be subject to enforcement. In practice, attachment is implemented through entries made via the Central Depository and authorised intermediaries.

(v) Company shares and other corporate rights: Participations in limited liability companies and shares in joint-stock companies may be attached and transferred, subject to restrictions under company law (such as pre-emption rights or approval requirements).

(vi) Receivables and other claims: The debtor’s claims against third parties (for example, contractual receivables) may be subject to garnishment. In such cases, the third party becomes obliged to pay the creditor directly within the limits of the attached claim.

(vii) Intellectual property rights: Trademarks, patents, copyright and related rights may be subject to enforcement insofar as they are transferable and capable of economic valuation.

(viii) Cryptocurrencies and other digital assets: Although the regulatory framework is still developing, digital assets with economic value may, in practice, be subject to freezing and enforcement measures, provided they can be identified and effectively controlled. The main challenges are typically technical, particularly regarding access to digital wallets.

(ix) Other proprietary rights: Any other right capable of pecuniary valuation — such as usufruct, superficies or other transferable real or contractual rights — may, in principle, be subject to enforcement.

It should be noted, however, that Romanian law provides for categories of assets that are wholly or partially exempt from enforcement (for example, certain goods strictly necessary for daily living, and portions of salary income within statutory limits). Accordingly, while the scope of assets subject to civil recovery in Romania is broad, it is not unlimited, reflecting the balance between the creditor’s right to enforcement and the debtor’s minimum legal protection.

Asset recovery through civil law entails mechanisms of protection and redress that are exclusively patrimonial in nature, aimed at restoring the victim’s or creditor’s patrimony to the position it was in prior to the damage, or at securing satisfaction of the claim. This must be distinguished from criminal confiscation regimes (special or extended confiscation), which involve the forfeiture of assets to the State as a preventive measure. Civil law, by contrast, is directed towards the preservation and enforcement of a private right, and the beneficiary is, as a rule, a private individual or entity.

The main civil and civil procedural mechanisms are:

(i) Proprietary claim (action in recovery of property): claimant may seek recovery of possession or ownership of an asset where he or she has been unlawfully dispossessed (for example, the owner of property wrongfully taken or retained). This is the classical proprietary action grounded in ownership or another real right.

(ii) Personal actions (claims for performance or damages): A debtor may be ordered to pay a sum of money or to perform (or refrain from performing) a specific act through actions based on: contractual liability (specific performance or damages), tortious liability (damage caused by an unlawful act), unjust enrichment, restitution of undue payment (condictio indebiti), and similar grounds.

(iii) Paulian (revocatory) action – Article 1562 Civil Code: This procedural mechanism allows a creditor to render unenforceable against him or her transactions concluded by the debtor in fraud of creditors’ rights (typically gifts or sham sales to associates intended to conceal assets). The court declares the transaction unopposable to the creditor, thereby enabling enforcement against the asset.

(iv) Indirect action (oblique subrogation) – Article 1560 Civil Code: This permits a creditor to exercise, in the debtor’s name, the debtor’s rights against third parties where the debtor refuses or neglects to act in order to preserve his or her patrimony (for example, failing to pursue a claim or recover property).

(v) Action for annulment or nullity: Where the debtor’s patrimony has been diminished through legal acts affected by absolute or relative nullity, the creditor may challenge those acts in order to restore the asset or its value to the pool available for enforcement.

(vi) Interim measures: precautionary attachment and garnishment – Article 953 of the Civil Procedure Code and Articles 780–781 of the Civil Procedure Code: These measures enable the preservation of the debtor’s assets pending resolution of the substantive claim, preventing dissipation. Precautionary attachment applies to movable and immovable property, while precautionary garnishment applies to sums owed to the debtor or held in bank accounts.

(vii) Compulsory enforcement (Book V, Civil Procedure Code): Once an enforceable title has been obtained (such as a court judgment, notarised agreement, cheque or other instrument recognised by law), the creditor may initiate enforcement proceedings: attachment of movable or immovable property, garnishment of accounts or receivables, and sale of assets by public auction.

(viii) Insolvency proceedings (Law No. 85/2014): Creditors may petition for the opening of insolvency proceedings in order to recover claims from debtors unable to meet their obligations, within a collective and court-supervised framework.

Criminal Confiscation and Forfeiture:

Criminal confiscation does not pursue the recovery of a private right; rather, it constitutes a preventive and punitive measure resulting in the forfeiture of assets to the State, as proceeds or instrumentalities of crime. It does not require the existence of an injured creditor, and its objective is not to restore the victim’s position but to remove illicit assets from the offender’s patrimony and deter further criminal conduct.

(i) Criminal interim measures (Article 249 Code of Criminal Procedure): These are provisional freezing measures ordered to secure potential confiscation or payment of damages, fines or judicial costs in criminal proceedings. They may affect movable and immovable property, bank accounts and receivables.

(ii) Special and extended confiscation (Articles 112 and 112 Criminal Code): Special confiscation concerns assets that constitute the proceeds of an offence or were used in its commission. Extended confiscation (Article 112¹ Criminal Code) may apply to additional assets where there are sufficient indications that they derive from criminal activity, based on specific evidentiary standards and statutory presumptions.

As a general rule, under Romanian civil procedural law, civil asset recovery proceedings may be initiated by any person who has legal capacity, standing, formulates a claim, and demonstrates a legitimate interest. The absence of legal capacity, standing or interest gives rise to direct procedural consequences (nullity or dismissal for lack of standing or lack of interest).

It follows that, in civil asset recovery, the typical claimant is the holder of the infringed civil right or the creditor, while the defendant is the person obliged to make restitution or payment, or the third party in possession of the asset.

(i) Individuals and private legal entities: Individuals and private legal entities (companies, associations, foundations) have standing, in principle, to bring asset recovery claims where they are the holders of the right or claim in question, or where they can demonstrate the legitimate interest required under Article 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In practice, this encompasses actions for payment (contractual or tortious claims), proprietary actions (recovery of property), actions for annulment or nullity, Paulian (revocatory) actions, interim measures (such as precautionary attachment), and subsequent enforcement proceedings based on an enforceable title.

(ii) Representatives, assignees and derivative holders of rights: Standing may also vest in persons who are not the original holders of the right but act lawfully in their stead or on the basis of a transfer of rights, such as an assignee of a claim or a person subrogated by law or agreement. In such cases, the claimant must demonstrate the legal chain conferring entitlement to pursue the claim; failing this, the action may be dismissed for lack of standing (Article 40 Code of Civil Procedure).

(iii) Trust-like arrangements (fiducia): the role of the fiduciary and other actors: Within the Romanian fiduciary structure (fiducia), the fiduciary is vested by law and contract with powers of administration and disposition over the fiduciary estate, within the scope of the fiduciary purpose. Accordingly, in recovery disputes concerning the fiduciary estate (for example, recovery of a claim belonging to that estate or recovery of property forming part of it), the fiduciary will ordinarily be the party with standing, as he or she exercises management and disposition powers and conducts the external legal relations of the fiducia. The Civil Code expressly provides that where the fiduciary acts on behalf of the fiduciary estate, he or she must indicate that capacity; failure to do so in the required circumstances (particularly where the act is detrimental to the settlor) may result in the fiduciary being deemed to have contracted in his or her own name, with direct consequences for procedural standing and patrimonial liability. Separately, the settlor or beneficiary may, in certain circumstances, have standing to bring corrective actions relating to the fiducia, such as an application for replacement of the fiduciary where the latter fails to fulfil his or her duties or jeopardises the entrusted interests. Such proceedings are aimed at protecting the fiduciary estate and, indirectly, its capacity to support future asset recovery.

(iv) Insolvency practitioners and creditors’ bodies: In insolvency, civil asset recovery assumes a collective dimension: actions are directed at reconstituting the debtor’s estate and maximising satisfaction of creditors, under the supervision of the insolvency judge. The special legislation therefore confers standing on the insolvency practitioner (judicial administrator or liquidator) to bring actions which, outside insolvency, would ordinarily belong to the debtor or to individual creditors. A central example is the action for directors’ liability for causing insolvency, where the law expressly provides that the insolvency judge may order members of management to bear part of the debtor’s liabilities, at the request of the judicial administrator or liquidator. If the practitioner fails to act, substitution mechanisms exist in favour of creditors: the action may be brought by the chair of the creditors’ committee (following a resolution of the creditors’ meeting), by a creditor designated by the meeting where no committee exists, or by a creditor holding more than 50% of the total admitted claims. Similarly, in actions seeking avoidance of fraudulent transactions concluded prior to insolvency, the judicial administrator or liquidator is the primary holder of standing before the insolvency judge. A special administrator appointed by shareholders may exercise management or representation functions during reorganisation within statutory limits and under the supervision of the judicial administrator; however, in matters concerning the recovery and reconstitution of the estate, primary standing rests with the insolvency practitioner and, subsidiarily, with creditors’ bodies in the situations expressly provided by law.

(v) State authorities as claimants in civil recovery: State authorities (the State, local authorities, public institutions) may have standing in civil asset recovery proceedings where they are holders of a proprietary right or claim (for example, recovery of damages, contractual claims, or recovery of assets belonging to the public or private domain of the State or a local authority). From the perspective of Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, they fall within the general category of claimants required to demonstrate capacity, standing and interest. In matters concerning tax claims, the State, through the competent fiscal authorities (such as the Romanian tax authority, i.e., the Agency for National Fiscal Administration, Romanian “ANAF”), frequently relies on special fiscal enforcement mechanisms and related administrative or tax litigation. Even in that context, questions as to who may initiate proceedings on behalf of a debtor may depend on representation rules and insolvency status, including administrative requirements that, in certain cases, documents be signed by the judicial administrator or liquidator where the debtor is subject to insolvency proceedings and has been deprived of management powers.

(vi) The Public Prosecutor in civil proceedings with a patrimonial element: The Public Prosecutor is not a general public creditor for civil asset recovery. However, the Civil Procedure Code expressly grants the prosecutor standing to initiate civil actions where necessary to protect the rights and legitimate interests of minors, persons under judicial protection or special guardianship, missing persons, and in other cases provided by law. The prosecutor may also seek enforcement of enforceable titles issued in favour of such persons. In practical terms, where civil asset recovery is necessary to protect the patrimonial interests of a legally protected vulnerable person (for example, a minor with a clear monetary claim), the prosecutor may bring the action or support enforcement under Article 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(i) Standing and access to the courts: Foreign states, their governmental entities and international organisations may bring civil actions before Romanian courts where they can demonstrate a legitimate legal interest, in the same manner as any other legal subject. Procedural capacity is recognised under the rules of private international law (Book VII of the Civil Code) and applies both to foreign states and to their constituent entities (embassies, consulates, governmental agencies).

(ii) State immunity from jurisdiction and its exceptions: State immunity from jurisdiction is a principle of public international law whereby a state may not, without its consent, be subjected to the jurisdiction of another state’s courts in respect of acts performed in the exercise of sovereign authority (acta jure imperii). However, contemporary international practice recognises a distinction between sovereign acts and commercial or private-law acts (jure gestionis). In relation to the latter — such as commercial transactions, investments, contractual relationships or non-sovereign tortious conduct — foreign states may be sued, or may appear as parties, in civil and commercial proceedings. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, compulsory enforcement may not be initiated against a public-law legal entity (which includes a foreign state or its institutions) unless it does not benefit from immunity under the law (Article 631 CPC). At the stage of authorising enforcement, the court may refuse the application if the debtor enjoys immunity from enforcement (Article 666(5)(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure). Waiver of immunity may be explicit (for example, by treaty clause or formal declaration during proceedings) or implicit. Where a foreign state brings proceedings as claimant or lodges a counterclaim, this is generally interpreted — within the limits of that dispute — as a waiver of jurisdictional immunity in respect of that litigation. This approach is also reflected in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (e.g. Cudak v Lithuania; Sabeh El Leil v France).

(iii) Immunity from Enforcement: Even where a foreign state submits to jurisdiction or loses on the merits, immunity from enforcement constitutes a distinct and more restrictive protection. Assets dedicated to sovereign functions — including diplomatic missions, public-use property and military assets — are, as a rule, protected from enforcement measures. Enforcement against the assets of a foreign state is permissible only where the state has expressly consented, where the assets do not fall within protected categories, where an exception under international law applies, or where the assets have been used for private or commercial purposes.

(iv) International treaty framework and domestic law: Romania has not ratified the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (which has not yet entered into universal force). However, Romania is bound by various sectoral treaties (such as the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and bilateral conventions) and is subject to the standards developed under the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, state immunity is applied in line with customary international law and prevailing international practice — namely, as a restrictive immunity limited to sovereign acts, with recognised exceptions for commercial activities.

(v) “Forum non conveniens” and Romanian law: The doctrine of forum non conveniens, familiar in common law systems, allows a court to decline jurisdiction where another forum is clearly more appropriate for the dispute. Under Romanian private international law and EU law (including the Brussels I Recast Regulation and the CJEU’s judgment in Owusu v Jackson), Romanian courts may not decline jurisdiction solely on the basis that another forum would be more convenient, where the statutory rules on international jurisdiction are satisfied (Articles 1,070–1,071 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The doctrine of forum non conveniens is not recognised in Romanian civil procedural law; jurisdiction may be declined only in the cases and on the grounds expressly provided by statute.

(vi) Practical implications: Where a foreign state or governmental entity brings civil proceedings in Romania (for example, to recover property or enforce a claim), Romanian courts will assume jurisdiction and determine the case on its merits. The foreign state may not subsequently invoke jurisdictional immunity in respect of that same dispute. However, enforcement against assets of that state located in Romania may raise separate issues. If the asset serves a sovereign or public function (such as embassy premises, state reserves or military property), enforcement will generally be barred unless immunity from enforcement has been waived or does not apply to that specific asset. The burden will rest on the creditor to demonstrate the absence or waiver of enforcement immunity.

In conclusion, foreign states and their entities may act as claimants or defendants before Romanian courts, but they benefit from enhanced protective rules: jurisdictional immunity in respect of sovereign acts (subject to explicit or implicit waiver, particularly in commercial matters or proceedings initiated by the state itself); immunity from enforcement in respect of sovereign assets, removable only under strict conditions; and the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not recognised as a ground for declining jurisdiction under Romanian law.

In civil debt recovery and the enforcement of claims against assets held through corporate vehicles, trusts, foundations, nominees or layered structures, practical difficulties frequently arise in identifying and realising concealed assets. The abusive use of legal structures to disguise the ultimate beneficial owner or the debtor’s patrimony is addressed under Romanian law; however, there is no doctrine strictly equivalent to the Anglo-Saxon concept of “piercing the corporate veil”. That said, Romanian law provides legal remedies through actions in simulation, revocatory (Paulian) actions, the imposition of personal patrimonial liability (particularly in insolvency), and sanctions for fraudulent or abusive interposition of persons.

(i) Companies and corporate vehicles: Companies Law No. 31/1990 (Art. 237^1 paras. 3 and 4) expressly provides that a shareholder who, in fraud of creditors, abuses the limited liability regime and the company’s separate legal personality shall be jointly and severally liable, without limitation, for the unpaid obligations of a dissolved/liquidated company. In practice, liability may be engaged where company assets are treated as personal assets, or where the company’s patrimony is depleted for the personal benefit of the shareholder or third parties in circumstances where it is known that the company will no longer be able to discharge its obligations. Article 169 of Law No. 85/2014 on insolvency permits the court to order the imposition of patrimonial liability on shareholders, directors, managers or other persons where, inter alia, they have used the company as a “sham” or “alter ego”, made preferential payments, misappropriated or concealed assets, engineered insolvency through fraudulent schemes, or otherwise acted in bad faith [2]. The statutory grounds are illustrative rather than exhaustive.

(ii) Foundations and trusts: Foundations are governed by Government Ordinance No. 26/2000; their assets are distinct from those of the founder or persons involved in their administration. Members of the governing board are liable for losses caused by culpable acts in accordance with the rules on mandate and general civil liability. There is no express veil-piercing mechanism, but general remedies (including the Paulian action and simulation) remain available. The traditional Anglo-Saxon trust does not exist in Romanian law; however, fiduciary arrangements (fiducia) are regulated under the Civil Code (Art. 773 et seq.). The fiduciary estate constitutes a separate patrimony protected from the fiduciary’s general assets, yet creditors may challenge transfers into a trust/fiducia by way of a Paulian action where fraud is established.

(iii) Nominees and “sham companies”: The function of nominees and “front” structures is to conceal the beneficial owner or true controller of an asset or company. Articles 1289–1292 of the Civil Code concerning simulation, including simulation by interposition of persons, allow third parties (including creditors) to rely upon the true legal act and disregard the apparent arrangement where simulation or fraud is proven. Likewise, the revocatory (Paulian) action enables creditors to seek a declaration that acts entered into in fraud of creditors are unenforceable against them (Arts. 1562–1565 Civil Code). It should be noted that acts concluded through nominees cannot be relied upon against third-party creditors where those creditors demonstrate an affected legal interest and prove simulation or fraud. However, the protection of bona fide acquirers must be respected: third parties who acquire in good faith and in compliance with statutory formalities are protected and cannot be prejudiced by undisclosed simulated arrangements. At the same time, mere characterisation of a company as a “sham” or “alter ego” is insufficient; fraud, patrimonial confusion or abuse of legal personality must be established.

(iv) Legal mechanisms analogous to “veil piercing”: Although there is no formalised doctrine equivalent to the “corporate veil piercing” recognised in common law jurisdictions, shareholder liability for abuse of legal personality is possible in cases of fraud or abusive use of the corporate form to prejudice creditors. The approach is restrictive and requires cogent evidence of fraud, asset commingling or abuse of separate legal personality. Creditors may rely upon:

• An action in simulation (including interposition of persons) to give effect to the parties’ true intention where a nominee has been used as a façade. Third parties/creditors may prove simulation by any admissible means of evidence (Art. 1292 Civil Code). Between parties, proof of simulation requires evidence of the secret agreement and the parties’ true intention; for third parties and creditors, simulation may be established by any means of proof.
• A Paulian (revocatory) action to obtain a declaration that acts by which the debtor disposed of assets in fraud of creditors are unenforceable against them. In the Romanian civil law system, the Paulian action is the appropriate mechanism to neutralise the vertical effect of intermediary structures used with intent to prejudice creditors.
• Interim and protective measures (including seizure and third-party garnishment of assets held through intermediaries), subject to presumptions regarding apparent possession or ownership (Art. 732 Civil Procedure Code).

(v) Beneficial ownership and public registers: AML Law No. 129/2019 and anti-money laundering regulations require the disclosure and registration of beneficial ownership information in respect of entities and fiduciary arrangements. Access is granted (subject to conditions) to competent authorities and persons demonstrating a legitimate interest. Public access has been restricted following CJEU case C-601/20 (Joined Cases C-37/20 and C-601/20, WM and Sovim SA v Luxembourg Business Registers), which invalidated general public access while maintaining access for authorities and persons with a demonstrated legitimate interest.

To conclude, although Romanian law does not recognise an automatic doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil” akin to that in common law jurisdictions, it provides a range of evidence-based remedies: imposition of patrimonial liability, the Paulian action, simulation/interposition claims, reliance on beneficial ownership registers, and interim and enforcement procedures. Success ultimately depends upon proactive creditor action, structural transparency and effective cooperation with authorities in relevant jurisdictions. In practice, however, the use of these mechanisms is procedurally and evidentially demanding. The creditor must identify and substantiate the true ownership structure/beneficial owner and demonstrate fraudulent intent, abuse of legal personality, or lack of substantive independence of the vehicle. Beneficial ownership registers, AML measures and cross-border judicial cooperation (including AML/CFT information exchange) have improved effectiveness, yet obstacles remain in complex, international or highly layered structures.

Under Romanian law, a “civil asset recovery action” is not an autonomous procedure but a practical category encompassing various causes of action (contractual or tortious claims, Paulian/revocatory actions, actions in simulation, proprietary claims, annulment or rescission, corporate claims, insolvency actions, etc.). Jurisdiction is therefore determined by reference to the specific relief sought, the nature of the legal relationship, and the value of the principal head of claim, pursuant to the Civil Procedure Code and any applicable special legislation.

(a) International Jurisdiction (where foreign elements arise):

Where the dispute contains foreign elements (e.g. a foreign defendant, assets abroad, jurisdiction clauses, foreign vehicles), international jurisdiction is assessed first. Domestic rules apply only insofar as EU law, treaties or special statutes do not provide otherwise. As a general rule, Romanian courts have jurisdiction where the defendant is domiciled, habitually resident, or established in Romania at the date proceedings are commenced.

Jurisdiction may also arise through a valid jurisdiction agreement or tacit prorogation (appearance on the merits without timely objection), subject to the requirement that the dispute bear a sufficient connection to Romania. In exceptional cases, forum necessitatis permits Romanian courts to assume jurisdiction where proceedings abroad are impossible or unreasonable; if the claimant is a Romanian national domiciled in Romania or a Romanian legal person, jurisdiction becomes mandatory.

The court examines international jurisdiction of its own motion. If no Romanian court has jurisdiction, the claim is dismissed (subject to forum necessitatis), and lack of international jurisdiction may be raised at any stage.

Where international jurisdiction is established, domestic competence is determined by the ordinary rules on subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction; failing identification of a competent court, the Bucharest District Court (Sector 1) or the Bucharest Tribunal acts as a residual forum.

(b) Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is generally determined by the value of the principal claim (excluding interest and costs) and, where applicable, by the nature of the claim:

• The District Court has jurisdiction over pecuniary claims up to RON 200,000.
• The Tribunal has jurisdiction at first instance over higher-value claims and matters not assigned elsewhere.
• The Court of Appeal primarily exercises appellate jurisdiction and acts as a court of first instance mainly in administrative and fiscal matters under special legislation.

Where multiple principal heads of claim are advanced, jurisdiction is assessed separately if they are founded on distinct causes of action; where closely connected, jurisdiction is determined by the claim attracting the higher court. This may result in severance or elevation of the case to the Tribunal in complex asset recovery litigation.

(c) Territorial Jurisdiction: General Rule, Alternative and Exclusive Jurisdiction

The general rule is that proceedings are brought before the court of the defendant’s domicile or registered office, and that court retains jurisdiction even if the defendant subsequently changes domicile or seat.

There are also alternative heads of territorial jurisdiction, of particular practical relevance in asset recovery, as they may allow proceedings to be anchored in a forum advantageous from an evidential or operational perspective. For tort claims, jurisdiction also lies with the court of the place where the harmful act occurred or where the damage was sustained. In contractual disputes (performance, annulment, rescission or termination), jurisdiction may lie with the court of the place designated for performance. Additional rules apply in respect of secondary establishments, multiple defendants, or defendants with an unknown seat.

By contrast, the Code provides for exclusive territorial jurisdiction, which cannot be displaced by agreement. In asset recovery practice, the most common instances include: claims concerning rights in rem over immovable property (and certain analogous proprietary or possessory actions), which must be brought before the court of the situs; company law claims prior to completion of liquidation or deregistration, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of the company’s registered office; insolvency and preventive composition proceedings, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the debtor’s registered office; and claims brought by professionals against consumers, which must be issued before the court of the consumer’s domicile.

In matters concerning rights of which the parties may freely dispose, the parties may agree to confer jurisdiction upon another court, save where jurisdiction is exclusive. In consumer matters and other statutorily protected areas, such choice is generally permissible only after the right to compensation has arisen; any prior agreement to the contrary is treated as void.

(d) Conflicts of Jurisdiction

Lack of jurisdiction may be a matter of public policy (e.g. subject-matter jurisdiction or exclusive territorial jurisdiction) or of private interest. Public policy objections must be raised at the first hearing at which the parties are properly summoned and able to make submissions; objections of private interest may generally be raised only by the defendant, typically in the defence or, at the latest, at the first hearing.

The court is under a duty to examine its general, subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction of its own motion at the first effective hearing (with, at most, one adjournment strictly necessary for clarification).

If the court upholds its jurisdiction, the case proceeds, and that determination is ordinarily challengeable only on appeal against the final judgment. If it declines jurisdiction, it issues a ruling transferring the case to the competent court; such rulings are generally not subject to appeal. However, where the court dismisses the claim on the basis that it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts or within the remit of a non-judicial body, the decision is subject to appeal on a point of law only.

Romanian courts and enforcement authorities recognise and permit the enforcement of foreign civil judgments and orders in asset recovery matters. The applicable legal regime depends decisively on the state of origin and the relevant instrument: European Union law (in particular Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, “Brussels I Recast”) in respect of judgments from Member States, and the domestic regime under Book VII of the Civil Procedure Code (international civil procedure) for judgments from third (non-EU) states, supplemented where applicable by bilateral or multilateral treaties.

(a) Judgments / Orders from EU Member States

In civil and commercial matters (subject to the express exclusions, such as insolvency and arbitration), a judgment given in one Member State is recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure, under EU Regulation 1215/2012. The Regulation adopts a broad definition of “judgment”, encompassing “any decree, order, decision or writ of execution”, regardless of its designation.

Accordingly, many instruments commonly used in asset recovery (payment orders, injunctions, certain delivery orders, and declaratory or monetary judgments) will ordinarily fall within its scope, provided they are issued by a “court” within the meaning of the Regulation. Enforcement takes place without any declaration of enforceability (abolition of exequatur). However, the practical enforcement procedure is governed by Romanian enforcement law, as the Regulation provides that enforcement is to be carried out in accordance with the law of the Member State addressed and under the same conditions as a domestic judgment.

Procedural Requirements: In practice, in order to enforce an EU judgment in Romania, the applicant must produce to the competent enforcement authority a duly authenticated copy of the judgment together with the European certificate issued by the court of origin.

Before the first enforcement measure is taken, the certificate must be served on the debtor and accompanied by the judgment if it has not previously been served. The debtor may, in certain circumstances, request a translation; pending its provision, no enforcement measures other than protective measures may be taken. A significant procedural advantage is the absence of legalisation or similar formalities for documents issued in a Member State within the framework of the Regulation.

Provisional and Protective Measures: The Regulation permits the circulation of provisional and protective measures where ordered by a court having jurisdiction as to the substance. However, an important limitation applies: provisional measures granted without the defendant being summoned will not circulate under the Regulation unless the decision containing the measure is served on the defendant prior to enforcement. Additional documentation, including proof of service where the measure was granted without notice, is required for enforcement.

Grounds for Refusal (EU): Limited and Exhaustive: Recognition may be refused, upon application, if, inter alia, it would be manifestly contrary to public policy; if a judgment given in default was not served in sufficient time to enable the defendant to arrange for his defence; or if it is irreconcilable with a judgment given in the Member State addressed or with an earlier judgment given in another state meeting the conditions for recognition. Specific grounds also arise where protected jurisdictional rules (e.g. insurance, consumer or employment matters) or exclusive jurisdiction rules have been infringed.

Enforcement may be refused, at the debtor’s request, on the same grounds. The court may not review the substance of the foreign judgment (no review on the merits).

(b) Judgments / Orders from Third (Non-EU) States

In respect of non-EU states, recognition and enforcement are governed by the Civil Procedure Code (Book VII). The Civil Procedure Code defines “foreign judgments” broadly, encompassing contentious and non-contentious judicial decisions, as well as notarial acts and acts of other competent authorities.

Recognition (e.g. for res judicata effect): Save for limited categories of recognition ipso jure (principally matters of personal status), the general rule is conditional recognition. The foreign judgment must be final under the law of the state of origin; the foreign court must have had jurisdiction (not one artificially founded solely on the defendant’s presence or the existence of unrelated assets); reciprocity must exist between Romania and the state of origin as to the effects of judgments; and, where the judgment was given in default, it must be shown that proceedings were duly served in sufficient time and that the rights of defence, including rights of appeal, were respected.

Recognition may be refused on established private international law grounds, including manifest breach of Romanian international public policy; fraud in matters not at the parties’ disposal; the existence of Romanian proceedings or a Romanian judgment between the same parties; irreconcilability with an earlier recognised judgment; infringement of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Romanian courts; breach of the right to a fair hearing; or where the judgment remains subject to appeal in the state of origin.

The Romanian court may not review the merits of the foreign judgment; its scrutiny is confined to the statutory conditions and grounds of refusal.

Jurisdiction lies with the Tribunal of the domicile or registered office of the party resisting recognition (or the Bucharest Tribunal where this cannot be determined). Recognition may also arise incidentally within other proceedings, for example by way of a res judicata defence or as a preliminary issue.

The documentary requirements are relatively standardised: a copy of the judgment, proof of its finality, proof of service of originating process (in default cases), and any further documents necessary to establish compliance with the statutory conditions. Documents must be accompanied by certified translations and, as a rule, be legalised or apostilled, subject to the qualifications set out in the Code.

Enforcement in Romania (Exequatur): For compulsory enforcement of a non-EU judgment, leave to enforce (exequatur) must be obtained from the Tribunal in whose district enforcement is to take place.

A significant practical limitation for asset recovery is that, under Romanian domestic law, non-EU judgments ordering provisional or protective measures, or those granted with provisional enforceability, may not be enforced in Romania under this regime. In practice, where asset freezing in Romania is sought on the basis of a provisional measure granted in a third state, the more effective strategy is ordinarily to apply directly to the Romanian courts for protective measures under the Civil Procedure Code, relying on the foreign judgment and the surrounding circumstances (e.g. urgency or fraud risk) as evidential support.

(c) International Treaties and Special Instruments

Beyond these two principal regimes (EU law and the domestic non-EU framework), Romania may apply bilateral or multilateral treaties containing specific recognition and enforcement rules. At EU level, broader instruments such as the 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention (to which the EU has acceded) coexist with the Brussels I Recast regime for intra-EU matters and may become relevant in relations with certain third states, subject to applicability and entry into force between the parties.

Separately, and of particular importance in asset recovery, arbitral awards do not fall within Brussels I Recast. Their recognition and enforcement are governed, as a rule, by the 1958 New York Convention and domestic law — a distinction of practical consequence where recovery is founded upon an arbitral award rather than a court judgment.

International civil cooperation in asset recovery rests upon a combination of European, international and domestic rules which, taken together, create the procedural framework for obtaining evidence, effecting service, preserving assets and securing other forms of judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters. Contemporary instruments significantly facilitate the taking of evidence, judicial assistance and interim preservation in cross-border civil asset recovery. Within the European Union, the emphasis lies on streamlined electronic systems, direct transmission between designated authorities and courts, and the free circulation of protective measures and judgments. In relations with non-EU states, the Hague Conventions and bilateral treaties apply, typically involving additional formalities. Creditors must act promptly, ensure appropriate translations, and comply with the language and procedural requirements of the requested state.

(a) European Instruments (EU Member States)

Service of documents: Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 (recasting Regulation 1393/2007) governs the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents within the EU. It establishes a system of expedited electronic transmission between designated transmitting and receiving agencies, together with structured remedies where service is refused on linguistic or procedural grounds.

Taking of evidence: Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 (recasting Regulation 1206/2001) enables courts of one Member State to request directly the courts of another Member State to take evidence (e.g. witness examination, expert evidence, documentary production). Modern techniques, including videoconferencing, may be used, and diplomatic channels are not required.

European Account Preservation Order (EAPO): Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 establishes a procedure for the rapid freezing of bank accounts held by a debtor in another Member State. It also provides mechanisms for obtaining account information where the creditor lacks precise details. Applications are made to the competent court of the creditor’s domicile or of the Member State where the account is held, and the procedure applies in cross-border cases.

(b) Hague Conventions (1970, 1980, 2019)

These may apply where EU instruments are unavailable or where the dispute involves a third state.

(c) Obtaining Evidence and Assistance from Foreign Jurisdictions

Letters of request (letters rogatory): Where a Romanian court requires evidence located abroad (e.g. witness testimony, expert examination, production of documents, examination of parties), it issues a letter of request to the competent judicial authority of the requested state. The request specifies its purpose, the questions to be addressed, and any procedural requirements (such as the presence of the parties). Depending on the applicable instrument, transmission may occur directly between courts or via the designated central authority (typically the Ministry of Justice).

Within the EU, Regulation 2020/1783 permits direct court-to-court transmission using standard forms and supports remote taking of evidence, including by videoconference.

For non-EU states such as Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States or Canada, the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention applies. Requests are transmitted through central authorities and executed in accordance with the procedural law of the requested state, subject to recognised grounds for refusal (e.g. public policy, sovereignty, national security).

Service of Documents: Within the EU, service is effected through expedited, largely digital channels between designated agencies, without legalisation requirements. The recipient may refuse service if the document is not in a language he understands or an official language of the place of service; the Regulation provides corrective mechanisms. In exceptional cases, postal or diplomatic channels may be used.

For third states, the 1965 Hague Service Convention or applicable bilateral treaties govern service, typically involving central authorities and longer timelines.

Preservation of Assets Abroad: The European Account Preservation Order (Regulation 655/2014) permits the freezing of bank accounts without prior notice to the debtor, upon demonstration of urgency and risk of dissipation. The court may request account information from designated authorities in the Member State where accounts are suspected to exist. The order is rapidly enforceable throughout participating Member States.

Access to public registers: European instruments and domestic law provide avenues for obtaining information from foreign land registers, commercial registers and other public databases, including mechanisms relevant to identifying beneficial owners.

Administrative and judicial support: Ministries of Justice, acting as central authorities, assist with the transmission of requests, liaison with foreign authorities and clarification of procedural requirements.

(d) Romanian Domestic Law on Judicial Cooperation in Evidence-Taking

Under the Civil Procedure Code (notably Articles 261–262, 299, 340 and 357), evidence located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the seized court, including abroad, is obtained by way of letter of request. In international matters, this mechanism operates in conjunction with applicable EU instruments, Hague Conventions or bilateral treaties. Costs, time limits and procedural requirements are governed both by the Civil Procedure Code and by the relevant international instrument.

Romanian civil procedure does not employ the terminology of a “Mareva injunction”; however, it provides a range of mechanisms with a comparable practical effect, aimed at the preservation and freezing of assets and receivables and at preventing the dissipation of the debtor’s estate pending the creditor’s acquisition of an enforceable title.

The core instruments are the precautionary measures (seizure by way of security and garnishment by way of security), judicial sequestration (in respect of assets in dispute or exposed to risk), and the presidential ordinance (urgent, interim measures granted on the basis of a prima facie case). In cross-border matters within the European Union, a particularly effective tool is the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO). The choice of measure is generally determined by the nature of the asset: tangible assets (seizure by way of security), receivables and bank accounts (garnishment by way of security), assets in dispute requiring preservation or administration (judicial sequestration), and atypical urgent situations requiring a specific, reversible and expedited order (presidential ordinance). For bank accounts within the EU, the EAPO most closely resembles a Mareva-type freezing order, albeit subject to its own stringent requirements and limited to cross-border cases and bank accounts.

(a) Seizure by way of security (freezing of the debtor’s assets): Seizure by way of security consists in the attachment and freezing of attachable movable and/or immovable assets of the debtor (including assets held by third parties), so that they may be realised once the creditor has obtained an enforceable title. The essential conditions concern the existence of a monetary claim and the stage and evidential support thereof. In the absence of an enforceable title, the claim must, as a rule, be evidenced in writing and be due and payable, and the creditor must demonstrate that substantive proceedings have been commenced; the court may require the provision of security. Where the claim is not evidenced in writing, seizure may be sought upon proof that proceedings on the merits have been issued and upon payment of security amounting to one half of the value claimed. Seizure may also be granted in respect of claims not yet due where there is a risk (for example, diminution of security, failure to provide promised security, or a danger of concealment, removal or dissipation of assets), subject to the fulfilment of the basic requirements and to security as determined by the court. Procedurally, the application is made to the court having jurisdiction over the merits. It is determined as a matter of urgency, in chambers, generally without notice, by an immediately enforceable order. It is not necessary to identify the specific assets in the application. Enforcement is effected by a bailiff without the need for separate authorisation, and the measure is implemented without prior demand or notice; in respect of registrable assets, it is entered in the relevant public registers (Land Register, Trade Register, electronic security interests register) for opposability.

(b) Garnishment by way of security (freezing of sums and receivables owed by third parties, including bank accounts): Garnishment by way of security enables the freezing of sums of money, securities or other intangible movable assets owed to the debtor by a third party (including a bank), or which will become due under existing legal relationships. The substantive requirements follow the logic of seizure by way of security: proof of the claim (in writing and due, or otherwise supported by security), proof that proceedings on the merits have been commenced, and—where risk is established—the possibility of obtaining the measure even in respect of claims not yet due, subject to security fixed by the court. The rules governing determination, enforcement, lifting and setting aside of the measure are expressly aligned with those applicable to seizure by way of security. In practice, in relation to bank accounts, once the measure is maintained until the creditor obtains an enforceable title, that title is served upon the garnishee so as to convert the freezing effect into enforcement in accordance with the law.

(c) Judicial sequestration (custody/administration of assets in dispute or exposed to risk): Judicial sequestration primarily concerns assets forming the subject matter of litigation (typically as to ownership, possession, use or administration), which are placed under custody and entrusted to a court-appointed sequestrator where necessary for the preservation of the right in issue. It may also be granted in the absence of pending proceedings in expressly provided situations, including where there are well-founded grounds to believe that the asset may be removed, destroyed or deteriorated, or where the creditor demonstrates the debtor’s insolvency or serious risk of evasion of enforcement, particularly in respect of assets constituting the creditor’s security. Where granted in advance of proceedings, the applicant must commence substantive proceedings (or arbitration, or enforcement of title) within a maximum of 20 days, failing which the measure lapses by operation of law. The application is heard urgently, with notice to the parties, and may be made conditional upon the provision of security. In cases of particular urgency, a provisional administrator may be appointed without notice pending determination.

(d) Presidential ordinance (urgent interim relief based on a prima facie case): The presidential ordinance constitutes a flexible interim remedy for pressing situations. Upon finding a prima facie case in favour of the claimant, the court may order provisional measures to preserve a right liable to be prejudiced by delay, to prevent imminent and irreparable harm, or to remove obstacles to enforcement. The measure is temporary and enforceable and may be sought even where substantive proceedings are already pending. A critical limitation is that the ordinance may not determine the merits of the dispute, nor may it order measures whose execution would render restoration of the factual position impossible. In practice, it may function as a form of conservation order (for example, temporary prohibitions on disposition in appropriate circumstances), provided it remains strictly interim and reversible. Procedurally, the application is brought before the court competent on the merits. It is heard as a matter of urgency and priority, with evidential rules adapted to urgency. In exceptional urgency, it may be granted without notice, even on the same day, on the basis of the application and documentary evidence. The ordinary remedy is an appeal within five days (from pronouncement if with notice, or from service if without notice), and suspension on appeal may be ordered subject to security.

(e) European Account Preservation Order (EAPO): In cross-border matters, a creditor may avail itself of the European Account Preservation Order under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014, which enables the rapid freezing of funds held in the debtor’s bank accounts in another Member State.

Two principal substantive requirements apply: the creditor must satisfy the court that the measure is urgently needed because there is a real risk that enforcement of the claim will otherwise be impeded or substantially more difficult; and, where no judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument yet exists, the creditor must adduce sufficient evidence to establish that it is likely to succeed on the merits (the European equivalent of fumus boni iuris). The procedure is ex parte (the debtor is neither informed nor heard prior to issuance), and security is, as a rule, mandatory where no enforceable title exists, subject to justified exceptions; where a title already exists, security remains within the court’s discretion. A significant advantage for asset tracing lies in the account information mechanism: in certain circumstances, the competent authority in the Member State of enforcement may obtain information as to the existence of accounts, such information being disclosed to the court rather than directly to the creditor.

Romanian civil procedure does not recognise broad common law–style “discovery” permitting fishing expeditions across the entirety of an opponent’s documents or information. Instead, a claimant may, under judicial supervision, obtain targeted mechanisms for identifying and proving the existence of assets or patrimonial flows through the taking of evidence (documents, examination on oath, expert evidence, judicial inspection, etc.).

In Romania, a claimant may support asset identification and tracing through preservation of evidence and rapid factual findings (including prior to proceedings), targeted production of documents from parties, third parties, and authorities, examination on oath, expert investigations with a duty of cooperation and the possibility of adverse inferences, judicial inspection, and procedural sanctions for non-compliance.

However, the most powerful patrimonial investigation tools — with effective access to data from banks and public institutions — typically arise post-judgment, within enforcement proceedings, through the judicial bailiff’s statutory powers to require disclosure of data and documents from credit institutions and tax authorities.

(a) Pre-action mechanisms

Preservation of evidence (including prior to proceedings): Any interested person may seek, before or during proceedings, the taking of evidence where there is a risk that such evidence may be lost or become difficult to administer at a later stage. This mechanism is particularly useful for asset tracing where it is necessary swiftly to record the state of assets, records, factual situations, or to obtain an expert’s findings (for example, confirming the existence of goods in storage, the condition of assets, or the valuation of a pool of assets). Before substantive proceedings are issued, the application is made to the District Court having jurisdiction over the location of the witness or the subject matter of the finding. The matter is heard in chambers and, in cases of urgency, may be granted without notice. An order allowing the application is enforceable and not subject to appeal.

Bailiff’s finding of fact (official report with probative force): Separately, the Code permits a judicial bailiff to record, at the request of an interested party, a factual situation liable to cease or change. The report has the evidential status of an authentic instrument. Where access requires the cooperation of the opposing party and consent is not forthcoming, the finding may be authorised by the court, including without notice where appropriate. In practice, this tool is used to “photograph” a patrimonial or operational reality at a given moment: the existence of goods, stock, equipment, markings, business activities, or indications of removal or concealment of assets.

(b) In-proceedings tools (court-controlled disclosure)

Order for production of documents held by the opposing party: Where a party demonstrates that the opposing party holds a document relevant to the dispute, the court may order its production. Such an application is particularly admissible where the document is common to the parties, has been referred to in the proceedings, or where there is a statutory duty of disclosure. Non-compliance carries significant evidential consequences. If a party refuses to answer questions regarding the existence or possession of the document, is shown to have concealed or destroyed it, or fails to produce it despite proven possession, the court may deem the other party’s assertions as to its contents to be established. In addition to adverse evidential inferences, the court may impose a judicial fine for failure to produce a document or asset and, upon request, award compensation for loss caused by delay.

Documents held by third parties or public authorities: Where a necessary document is held by a third party, that party may be summoned (including as a witness) with an obligation to produce it; representatives of legal entities may likewise be summoned. Where a document is held by a public authority or institution, the court may take steps to obtain it, either upon application or of its own motion. There is, however, an express limitation: transmission may be refused where the document concerns national defence, public security, or diplomatic relations. In other cases, extracts or certified copies may be provided. As regards public registers, the court will generally request certified copies rather than originals, and inspection may be carried out by a delegated judge or by way of letters of request.

Examination on oath (compelled answers as to personal facts): The court may order examination on oath, at the request of a party or of its own motion, in respect of personal facts relevant to the dispute. In asset recovery litigation, this is frequently deployed to establish facts relating to control, administration, possession, asset flows, and disposition decisions, particularly where sham transactions, interposed entities, or creditor fraud are alleged. In the case of legal entities, answers are ordinarily given in writing, subject to particular rules applicable to partnerships.

Expert evidence (with duty to cooperate and adverse inferences): The court may appoint one or more experts where specialist opinion is required to clarify factual matters. In asset recovery matters, accounting, financial, or technical expertise often serves to translate records and transactions into evidential conclusions concerning assets, transfers, value, and loss. The parties are obliged to cooperate with the expert. Where a party obstructs or impedes the expert’s work, the court may treat the opposing party’s assertions concerning the relevant factual issue as established, assessed in the context of the overall evidence. In exceptional cases, where the establishment of the truth is inseparably linked to the expert investigation, the court may authorise the use of public force by enforceable order to enable the expert examination.

Judicial inspection (site visit): The court may order an inspection where it considers this necessary for the determination of the case. The inspection is conducted with notice to the parties and may include the hearing of witnesses, experts, or the parties on site. In disputes concerning assets or business operations, judicial inspection may function as an investigative tool, for example in locating goods, confirming use, or verifying the actual existence of assets.

(c) Post-judgment investigation: enforcement as the most powerful tool

Duty of third parties and institutions to provide information to the bailiff: Once an enforceable title exists and enforcement proceedings are commenced, the Civil Procedure Code provides a highly effective domestic asset-tracing mechanism. At the request of the judicial bailiff, any person who owes sums to the debtor or holds attachable assets must provide in writing the information necessary for enforcement (including the scope of obligations, assignments, prior attachments, subrogations, novations, etc.). Public institutions, credit institutions, and any natural or legal entities are required to provide, without delay, copies of documents, data, and information deemed necessary by the bailiff, even where special legislation might otherwise restrict disclosure. Tax authorities are subject to the same obligation in respect of data they administer. The bailiff is bound by confidentiality and may use the information solely for enforcement purposes. The bailiff also enjoys direct access to the Land Register, the Trade Register, and other public registers containing data on assets susceptible to enforcement. Non-compliance may attract judicial fines and compensatory measures. For this reason, in practice, substantial recovery strategies are often structured in two stages: first, obtaining an enforceable title (including by accelerated procedures), and second, pursuing robust enforcement using the bailiff’s statutory information-gathering powers.

(d) EU instruments supplementing domestic mechanisms (cross-border cases)

Identification and freezing of accounts within the EU (EAPO): In cross-border matters, the European Account Preservation Order under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 may operate both as a freezing mechanism and, in certain circumstances, as an indirect account-identification tool. The creditor may request the court to require the information authority in the Member State of enforcement to obtain the information necessary to identify the debtor’s bank and accounts, particularly where the creditor already holds an enforceable title (subject to limited exceptions). This mechanism is especially relevant because, under domestic Romanian law, identifying a defendant’s bank accounts prior to obtaining an enforceable title is generally difficult in the absence of public registers or general disclosure obligations owed to an adversary.

(e) Extra-procedural sources (often decisive in practice)

OSINT: In practice, asset identification frequently begins with open-source and registry searches: the Land Register, the Trade Register, movable security archives, vehicle registers, and other public or semi-public databases. The Code facilitates the obtaining of certified copies from public registers through the court or, at the enforcement stage, directly by the bailiff.

For layered structures (companies, foundations, trusts), the beneficial ownership regime under AML Law No 129/2019 may constitute an important element in reconstructing control and asset flows, subject to the current limitations on public access to such data following European developments.

(a) Proprietary (in rem) remedies for recovery of the asset

Vindicatory action (rei vindicatio): The central remedy is the vindicatory action, by which the owner seeks restitution of the asset from a possessor or any other holder without title; in addition to restitution, damages may be claimed where appropriate. As a rule, the right to bring a vindicatory action is not subject to limitation, save for statutory exceptions. A judgment allowing the claim is binding and may be enforced, subject to procedural law, even against a subsequent transferee. In the recovery of misappropriated assets, vindication operates “in specie” where the claimant can establish title and that the defendant holds without legal basis or under a title unenforceable against the claimant.

A significant practical aspect concerns movables: a good-faith purchaser who acquires for value from a non-owner may become owner upon taking possession; however, a lost or stolen asset may nevertheless be vindicated from a good-faith possessor provided the action is brought, on pain of forfeiture, within three years from loss of material control. In certain situations (e.g. acquisition from a trader acting in the ordinary course of business or at public auction), the good-faith possessor enjoys a right of retention pending reimbursement of the price paid. For immovables entered in the Land Register, title is established by an official extract, which in many cases shifts the dispute towards the accuracy of the registration and the protection afforded to a good-faith acquirer.

The Civil Code attaches a comprehensive proprietary regime to vindication. The defendant may be ordered to restore the asset or to pay damages where the asset has perished through fault or has been alienated, and to account for products or their value. A bad-faith possessor or precarious holder may also be liable to account for fruits until restitution.

Conversely, the owner may be required to reimburse the possessor for necessary expenses and, within limits, useful expenses; the defendant may enjoy a right of retention over products pending reimbursement of production and harvesting costs, subject to important limitations where possession was acquired by violence or fraud.

These rules are particularly valuable in asset recovery, as they permit recovery not only of the asset itself but also of benefits generated by it (fruits or profits), or its value where it has already been disposed of.

Negative action (actio negatoria): Where the issue is not (or not only) dispossession, but the unfounded assertion of a limited real right (such as an easement, usufruct or use), the owner may bring a negative action. This action is likewise imprescriptible. In asset recovery strategy, it is useful to “clear” unlawfully asserted encumbrances before or alongside economic exploitation of the recovered asset.

Remedies relating to land registration (where the asset is immovable): Action for rectification of the Land Register (and limits vis-à-vis good-faith third parties). Where unlawful appropriation of an immovable has been reflected in an inaccurate registration (for example, because the transfer instrument is null, annulled or otherwise ineffective), any interested person may seek rectification of the entry. Rectification may be effected by authentic declaration or, in contentious proceedings, by final court judgment; such judgment may stand in lieu of the consent of the person obliged to provide documents necessary for rectification.

The action for rectification may be brought concurrently with the substantive claim or separately, as appropriate, and may extend to subsequent transferees, subject to statutory protection of good-faith purchasers for value.

In practice, the typical combination is a substantive action (e.g. nullity, rescission, declaration) together with Land Register rectification. Although immovable vindication remains the classical remedy, it is frequently accompanied or even supplanted by rectification where the central issue concerns the chain of registrations and the protection of a subsequent acquirer.

(b) Analogous (personal) remedies directed towards recovery of value

Restitution of performances (return of assets received without entitlement): The Civil Code lays down a general regime of restitution of performances: restitution is due whenever a person is bound by law to return assets received without entitlement, by mistake, or pursuant to a juridical act subsequently set aside with retroactive effect. The rule is restitution in kind, by returning the asset received; where restitution in kind is impossible or seriously impeded, restitution is made by equivalent value.

In asset recovery cases involving contractual “vehicles” (sham sales, invalid assignments, payments made under acts later annulled), this route is often more effective than vindication, particularly where the asset has been transformed or can no longer be distinctly identified.

Undue payment (condictio indebiti): Where misappropriation has taken the form of a payment or transfer of money not owed, the specific remedy is recovery of undue payment. A person who pays without being indebted is entitled to restitution, subject to recognised exceptions (e.g. gifts or management of another’s affairs). Restitution follows the general rules on restitution of performances.

This remedy is especially relevant where the “asset” consists of money and is no longer individually identifiable, and the realistic objective is recovery of the sum and, where appropriate, accessories.

Unjust enrichment (actio in rem verso): Where the conditions for vindication or restitution on a specific ground cannot be met, an action founded on unjust enrichment remains available. A person who, without fault, has been enriched without just cause at the expense of another is bound to make restitution within the limits of the loss suffered and not exceeding the enrichment. The action is subsidiary: it is inadmissible where another action is available. Restitution is owed only to the extent that the enrichment subsists at the date proceedings are commenced and is effected, ultimately, according to the general rules (in kind or by equivalent).

In asset recovery, unjust enrichment operates as a safety net where the precise legal pathway of misappropriation is unclear, but a corresponding patrimonial gain and loss, absent lawful justification, can be demonstrated.

Tortious liability (civil wrong): Where unlawful appropriation constitutes a civil wrong (whether or not accompanied by criminal liability), the claimant may seek damages in tort. The author of a wrongful act committed with fault is obliged to make good the loss. This remedy is generally the most flexible, capable of covering not only the value of the asset, but also consequential loss (loss of profit, remediation costs, deterioration, etc.), particularly where restitution in kind is unavailable or insufficient.

(c) Special remedies in fiduciary or managerial contexts (administration of another’s assets)

Where the asset has been diverted by an administrator or manager in the course of administering another’s property, the Civil Code imposes specific obligations with a restitutive and disgorgement function. The administrator must hand over all that has been received in the exercise of the mandate, even where the third-party payment was not due, and must account for any profit or patrimonial advantage obtained for personal benefit through unauthorised use of information acquired in that capacity. Where an asset has been used without permission, the equivalent of its use is owed.

These remedies are particularly effective where misappropriation is disguised as an act of administration (payments, expenses, contracts), as they allow recovery not only of the asset or sum, but also of any profit realised.

Under Romanian law, “civil asset recovery” is pursued through a range of causes of action (contractual claims, tort, restitution, annulment or relative nullity, revocatory actions, vindication etc.). The general rule is that a proprietary right of action is extinguished by limitation if not exercised within the statutory period.

The general limitation period applicable to most proprietary claims is three years, unless the law provides otherwise. In practice, this three-year period is the default for monetary claims (for example, recovery of sums paid without basis, damages, restitution), subject to the specific rules governing when time begins to run (see below).

Depending on the remedy relied upon, special limitation periods may apply. In the context of concealed or diverted assets, the most significant include:

• One-year limitation for the revocatory (Paulian) action: as a rule, the right of action is time-barred within one year from the date on which the creditor knew or ought to have known of the prejudice resulting from the impugned act. This period is critical in fraud scenarios involving transfers to nominees or special-purpose vehicles.
• Ten-year limitation period: applicable, inter alia, to real rights which are not declared imprescriptible and are not subject to another specific period, as well as in certain special matters (e.g. environmental damage). In asset recovery, its relevance depends on whether the chosen remedy is a prescriptible proprietary action or one which is imprescriptible by nature or statute.
• Imprescriptible actions: certain actions are not subject to limitation, including actions seeking a declaration of absolute nullity of a juridical act and declaratory actions (existence or non-existence of a right), subject to statutory conditions. In practice, however, the imprescriptibility of a declaration does not automatically eliminate temporal constraints affecting ancillary proprietary claims (such as restitution or damages), which may remain subject to limitation.
• Although vindication is often associated with the imprescriptibility of ownership, the Civil Code establishes a strict rule for lost or stolen movables: they may be vindicated from a good-faith possessor only if the action is brought, on pain of forfeiture, within three years from loss of material control. In asset recovery, this operates as a hard time bar for in specie recovery of misappropriated movables which have passed into the hands of good-faith third parties.

The central rule for fraud and concealment cases concerns when limitation begins to run. As a matter of principle, limitation runs from the date on which the holder of the right of action knew, or in the circumstances ought to have known, of its accrual.

In tort, the Civil Code expressly adopts a discovery-based standard: limitation runs from the date on which the injured party knew or ought to have known both the damage and the person liable. The same rule applies, mutatis mutandis, to restitutionary claims founded on unjust enrichment, undue payment, or management of another’s affairs. This is particularly important where the misappropriation mechanism is complex and identification of the responsible party is delayed.

For relative nullity (annulment), the Civil Code provides a specific rule in cases of deceit (dol): limitation runs from the date on which the deceit was discovered. This typically covers transfers of assets procured by fraudulent misrepresentation or deliberate concealment of essential information.

In respect of restitution of performances made pursuant to an act later annulled or terminated with retroactive effect, limitation does not run from the date of payment but from the date on which the judgment setting aside the act becomes final, or from the date on which the declaration of termination becomes irrevocable. In asset recovery, this enables a staged approach: first set aside the act, then pursue restitution within the newly triggered limitation period.

Certain suspension and extension mechanisms are calibrated to cases of fraud or concealment

First, the commencement of limitation is already structured around a knowledge-based test (actual or constructive knowledge), which in many fraud cases shifts the starting point to the date of effective discovery or to the date when discovery ought reasonably to have occurred.

Secondly, the Civil Code expressly provides for suspension where concealment is deliberate: Limitation does not begin to run, and if already running is suspended, for so long as the debtor deliberately conceals from the creditor the existence or exigibility of the debt. This provision is highly significant in complex fraud cases involving layered structures or nominees.

Additional grounds of suspension may also be relevant in commercial disputes, such as suspension during amicable settlement negotiations conducted within the final six months before expiry of the limitation period, and suspension during mandatory preliminary procedures required by law or contract (e.g. administrative complaints or conciliation), within statutory limits.

The Civil Code further provides an exceptional safety valve: reinstatement (relief from limitation) where the claimant, for serious reasons, failed to exercise the right of action in time. The application must be made within 30 days from cessation of the impediment. In fraud cases, the typical argument is that the inability to act was objectively caused by inaccessibility of information, concealment of documents, or opacity of structures; success depends on proving a serious impediment and prompt action once it ceases.

Limitation is interrupted, inter alia, by acknowledgment of the right by the person in whose favour limitation runs, and by the commencement of court or arbitral proceedings, including in insolvency or enforcement proceedings, as well as by constitution as a civil party in criminal proceedings.

Interruption erases the elapsed period and causes a new limitation period to begin running. In fraud cases, it is important to note that interruption by joining criminal proceedings as a civil claimant may operate up to the procedural milestones provided by law, which is frequently relevant in hybrid civil – criminal asset recovery strategies.

In civil matters, including asset recovery litigation, the applicable standard of proof is that of the balance of probabilities, often described as the “preponderance of probabilities” or the judicial conviction that a given state of facts is more likely than not to be true.

This standard requires the party bearing the burden of proof to establish that the essential facts underpinning its claim are, in the court’s reasonable assessment, more probable than their contrary, in other words, that they exceed the 50% threshold. Absolute certainty is not required.

The court assesses the evidence on the basis of its free evaluation of evidence, without any predetermined hierarchy of evidential means. It may take into account documentary, testimonial, electronic and expert evidence, judicial presumptions, and any other legally admissible material. Its conclusion must rest upon a comprehensive, reasoned and coherent assessment of all evidence adduced.

In proceedings such as sham (simulation) claims, Paulian (revocatory) actions, in rem claims, or unjust enrichment, the claimant must establish the relevant factual elements — existence and quantum of the debt, concealment conduct, links between the debtor and intermediaries, the existence of fraud, the trajectory of assets, absence of lawful cause, and so forth — to a standard of greater probability than the alternative explanation.

The claimant is not required to prove matters beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, it must present sufficient factual detail and evidential substance to persuade the court that, when the evidence is weighed as a whole, its account is more convincing than that advanced by the defendant or third parties.

Mere suspicion or conjecture will not suffice. For example, in a Paulian action challenging fraudulent transfers, the creditor must produce cogent indicia as to the purpose of the transfer, the interdependence of the parties, and the prejudice suffered. The court will assess the plausibility of the narrative and the overall evidential context in determining whether the balance tilts in favour of the claim.

In comparison, in criminal proceedings, the Criminal Procedure Code expressly requires that a conviction may be entered only where the court is satisfied that the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

While this does not require absolute certainty, it is a materially higher standard than the balance of probabilities. Its function is to safeguard the rights of the accused in light of the gravity of criminal sanctions. If, after evaluating all the evidence, a reasonable doubt remains as to guilt, acquittal must follow.

Accordingly, in civil asset recovery proceedings, the claimant need not demonstrate fraud, concealment, or asset tracing beyond reasonable doubt. It suffices to persuade the court, on a reasoned assessment, that its version of events is more probable than not.

This lower evidential threshold significantly reduces the burden compared with criminal prosecution for offences such as fraud, embezzlement or money laundering, where evidential uncertainty may result in acquittal. Civil courts may rely upon judicial presumptions, circumstantial evidence, and reasonable inferences drawn from the defendant’s conduct, including accounting expertise and forensic analysis. In practice, this allows for a more flexible evidential strategy in asset recovery than in criminal proceedings.

The combination of free evaluation of evidence and the balance of probabilities standard permits the court to attach weight to indirect or circumstantial material (for example, family or structural links between debtor and transferee, concealment behaviour, absence of a legitimate transactional trail, partial admissions, incomplete documentation, or the use of nominees).

That said, the absence of direct evidence, or a total inability to access critical data, will rarely be overcome in the claimant’s favour without corroborating elements grounded in logic, coherence and contextual consistency.

In civil proceedings, the classic rule applies: He who asserts must prove, save where the law provides otherwise. Evidence may be adduced by any lawful means, including presumptions, which are expressly recognised as a form of proof.

Accordingly, in asset recovery actions (restitution, tortious claims, unjust enrichment, annulment, Paulian actions, etc.), the claimant ordinarily bears the burden of establishing the facts giving rise to the right relied upon (existence of the right or debt, loss, nexus with the asset pursued, and the specific conditions of the remedy invoked). Only where the law establishes a presumption does the burden shift, in whole or in part, to the opposing party, who must rebut it.

The Civil Code lays down a particularly important presumption in the recovery of assets: until the contrary is proved, the person exercising control over an asset is presumed to be its possessor, and the possessor is presumed to be the owner, save in the case of immovables entered in the Land Register. The practical evidential effect is a displacement of the burden: in a vindicatory action or a claim for restitution of a specific movable, the claimant must rebut the presumption operating in favour of the possessor by proving its own title (and, where relevant, the unlawful nature of the holding).

In a revocatory (Paulian) action, the creditor must establish the prejudice suffered (typically that the debtor’s act has created or increased insolvency) and fraud as against the creditor’s rights. In the case of acts for value (or payments made in performance thereof), the law imposes an additional evidential requirement: the act may be declared unenforceable against the creditor only if the contracting third party, or the recipient of payment, knew that the debtor was creating or aggravating a state of insolvency.

By contrast, in the case of gratuitous acts, the statute does not require proof of the third party’s knowledge. In practical terms, the creditor’s evidential burden is lighter (there being no need to establish the subjective element on the part of the transferee), which operates as a legislative facilitation mechanism for recovery of assets transferred without consideration.

Where the scenario involves a sale at a derisory price or manifestly disproportionate performances, the typical civil law instrument is lesion, where the imbalance results from exploitation of the other party’s state of need, inexperience, or lack of knowledge. The injured party may seek annulment of the contract or reduction of its obligations. However, save in the case of minors, annulment is admissible only where the lesion exceeds one half of the value of the injured party’s performance at the time of contracting, and the disproportion must subsist at the date proceedings are commenced.

Although there is no general legal presumption of fraud nor a complete reversal of the burden of proof, the balance of probabilities standard and the statutory criteria structure the evidential inquiry and may render the case more objectively measurable (through valuation expert evidence, market comparables, etc.), thereby narrowing the dispute to the statutory elements of vulnerability and exploitation required by Article 1.221 of the Civil Code.

In civil asset recovery proceedings, the respondent’s defences fall, broadly, into two categories: procedural defences (which may block, delay or redirect the proceedings on procedural grounds) and substantive defences (which challenge the existence, scope or enforceability of the claimant’s right as against the respondent or third parties).

In practice, most effective defences can be analysed within one of these categories, although in complex cases they are often combined.

The most frequently invoked defence is limitation. As previously stated, the general limitation period is three years, unless the law provides otherwise. Certain remedies are subject to shorter periods. For example, in a revocatory (Paulian) action, the right of action is, as a rule, time-barred within one year from the date on which the creditor knew or ought to have known of the prejudice resulting from the impugned act. In relation to movables, there is even a strict forfeiture (rather than mere limitation): a lost or stolen movable may be vindicated from a good-faith possessor only if the action is brought within three years from the loss of material control, failing which the right is extinguished.

Romanian law does not recognise a formal doctrine of laches in the common law sense. However, the respondent may invoke lack of diligence, factual delay and abuse of rights where the claimant exercises a right exclusively to cause harm, or in an excessive and unreasonable manner contrary to good faith.

In the field of unjust enrichment, the Civil Code provides a defence with a similar practical effect: Enrichment is regarded as justified where it results from the injured party’s failure to exercise a right against the enriched party. In practical terms, tolerance or inaction where action was available may operate as a bar. Furthermore, in unjust enrichment, several defences are structurally embedded in the remedy. The respondent is liable only to the extent of the claimant’s loss and not beyond the amount of his own enrichment. Enrichment may also be justified (for example, where it results from performance of a valid obligation or from the claimant’s failure to exercise a right). The provision most closely resembling a change of position defence is the rule that restitution is owed only to the extent that the enrichment subsists at the date proceedings are commenced. If the advantage has been irreversibly expended without fault and no longer exists, restitution may be reduced or excluded. Additionally, the action is subsidiary: it will not succeed if the claimant has another available remedy.

For immovable property, a central defence is the statutory protection afforded to a good-faith purchaser for value who has acquired and registered a real right in the Land Register. In such circumstances, the acquirer is treated as the holder of the registered right, even if the predecessor’s title is subsequently cancelled at the request of the true owner, provided the statutory conditions of good faith are met (absence of a registered claim, absence of adverse entries, and lack of knowledge by other means of the inaccuracy). In practice, this constitutes one of the most powerful defences against vindicatory claims or rectification in chains of transactions.

In respect of movables, a person who acquires for value in good faith from a non-owner becomes owner upon taking possession. The principal exception concerns lost or stolen goods, which may be vindicated within the three-year period. Even then, where the asset was acquired from a trader acting in the ordinary course of business or at public auction, the good-faith possessor may retain the asset pending full reimbursement of the price paid. Where the claimant seeks restitution of an asset down the transactional chain, the Code allows an action against a third-party acquirer, but expressly subject to Land Register rules, good-faith acquisition of movables, and acquisitive prescription. The third party may therefore rely on those statutory protection mechanisms.

In vindicatory proceedings, the respondent typically either challenges the claimant’s title or relies upon statutory protection of acquisition (good faith, movable acquisition rules, Land Register protection for immovables). Although the right of action in vindication is, as a rule, imprescriptible, the Code expressly recognises good-faith acquisition “under the conditions of the law” and certain statutory exceptions.

In a Paulian action, the debtor and/or third-party transferee may contest each statutory condition. The creditor must prove prejudice (typically creation or aggravation of insolvency) and fraudulent character in that sense. A particularly effective defence is absence of real prejudice – for example, that the debtor remains solvent or retains sufficient attachable assets. Where the act was for value, the third party has a primary statutory defence: the act may be declared unenforceable only if the third party knew that the debtor was creating or aggravating insolvency. Absence of such knowledge defeats the claim. The respondent may also challenge the status of the claim (which must be certain at the time proceedings are commenced) and invoke the one-year limitation period.

Even where the Paulian action succeeds, the third-party acquirer may retain the asset by paying the creditor an amount equal to the prejudice caused by the impugned act.

In monetary claims, respondents frequently invoke discharge (payment, set-off, remission, etc.), the Civil Code enumerating the principal modes of extinguishment. Set-off extinguishes reciprocal debts up to the amount of the lesser debt; legal set-off operates automatically where both debts are certain, liquid and due. In asset recovery litigation, this functions as a classical reduction or neutralisation defence.

A particularly important defence in restitution claims involving assets is the right of retention: a person obliged to return or deliver an asset may retain it until the creditor performs the corresponding obligation arising from the same legal relationship or reimburses necessary or useful expenses, or compensates damage caused by the asset. In practice, this may suspend effective delivery until payment or adequate security is provided.

In complex asset recovery litigation, respondents further commonly rely on a set of procedural objections capable of leading to transfer, suspension or dismissal.

Among the most significant is lis pendens, preventing parallel proceedings concerning the same parties, cause and object before different courts; it may be raised by the parties or ex officio and results in referral to the court first seised (or to the higher court where jurisdictions differ). Equally important is res judicata, which attaches binding effect to the operative part of a prior judgment and its essential reasoning, precluding re-litigation of the same issue. In practice, these are complemented by objections of lack of jurisdiction, lack of standing, inadmissibility of certain heads of claim, and challenges to the admissibility or scope of evidence, depending on the procedural architecture of the case.

In substantive proceedings (vindicatory claims, restitution, Paulian actions, simulation, annulment, etc.), an innocent third party may participate in order to prevent a judgment prejudicing its rights.

The principal mechanism is voluntary intervention. Any person with a legal interest may intervene in pending proceedings. Intervention may be:

• Principal, where the third party asserts its own right to the asset or a closely connected right; or
• Accessory, where it supports the case of one of the existing parties.

As a rule, principal intervention is admissible only before the court of first instance and prior to the close of the merits stage, the court first determining admissibility in principle. The Code also provides mechanisms of compulsory joinder, intended to protect potential right-holders and to prevent inconsistent judgments. For example, a party may apply to join a person who might assert the same right in separate proceedings.

Where the defendant is merely a detentor (holding the asset on behalf of another) and is sued by a person asserting a real right, the defendant may trigger a procedure requiring identification of the true right-holder and joinder of that person to the proceedings. This safeguard is particularly significant in asset recovery strategies which might otherwise target only an apparent holder while bypassing the true owner.

Where a precautionary seizure is imposed, third-party protection operates through publicity requirements and judicial remedies. Precautionary measures affecting registrable assets are promptly entered in the relevant public registers (Land Register, Trade Register, movable security registers, etc.), rendering them opposable to subsequent acquirers. This protects diligent third parties and curtails reliance on alleged good faith following registration.

Furthermore, “any interested party” may challenge enforcement measures by way of an application to set aside enforcement, including where the seized asset does not belong to the debtor, exceeds lawful limits, or concerns exempt property.

A balancing mechanism also exists: Where the debtor furnishes adequate security, the court may order the lifting of the seizure. Indirectly, this mitigates the impact of freezing measures upon third parties whose interests depend upon continued use of the asset.

In the enforcement stage, clear procedural safeguards exist, in the form of the challenges to enforcement. Such challenges may be brought by any person affected by enforcement. In particular, in movable or immovable enforcement proceedings, a third party may lodge a challenge where it asserts ownership or another real right over the asset pursued. The applicable time limits reflect a balance between effectiveness and transactional certainty. A third party may contest enforcement throughout its course, but not later than 15 days from the forced sale or delivery. If that time limit is missed, the third party does not automatically forfeit all rights; it may, in principle, pursue a separate action. However, this is subject to the protection of rights definitively acquired by auction purchasers. Once a forced sale has become final, the purchaser’s title enjoys strong protection, and the third party’s remedies will generally shift towards damages rather than recovery of the asset itself. This represents a key safeguard of innocent acquirers and of the stability of civil transactions.

In the field of immovable property, the principal substantive safeguard is the protection afforded to a good-faith purchaser for value who acquires and registers a real right in the Land Register. Such an acquirer is treated as the legitimate right-holder even if the predecessor’s title is subsequently cancelled, provided that strict statutory conditions of good faith are satisfied (no registered dispute, no indication of rectification, and no actual knowledge of inaccuracy).

For asset recovery, this has a dual consequence: Claimants are incentivised to register claims promptly so as to prevent cleansing of title through subsequent protected transfers. At the same time, diligent third parties benefit from substantial protection where they acquire in reliance upon an unencumbered register.

The wider regime of Land Register notations reflects the function of publicity in signalling disputes and structuring priority between competing interests.

In cross-borders matters, third-party rights are expressly safeguarded under the European Account Preservation Order (Regulation 655/2014),

A third party may challenge the order itself, under the law of the Member State of origin; and its enforcement, under the law of the Member State of enforcement.

Jurisdiction is structured accordingly. The framework confirms a general principle: innocent third parties are not subordinated to the efficiency of freezing measures. They retain procedural remedies within the applicable national legal system, including in situations involving joint accounts or accounts held on behalf of others, where freezing is permitted only to the extent allowed by the law of the enforcing State.

Under Romanian law, cryptocurrencies and NFTs do not benefit from a traditional legal classification as currency or financial instruments. However, legislative developments, including Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), tax provisions, and anti-money laundering rules, support their qualification as intangible movable property with patrimonial value, capable of transfer and enforcement within the civil circuit.

The broad statutory definition of “property” under AML legislation encompasses digital and electronic assets, and both legal doctrine and practice largely recognise cryptocurrencies and NFTs as intangible movables. The Romanian Civil Code permits the transfer, encumbrance and judicial pursuit of such assets, applying, mutatis mutandis, the rules governing intangible movable property.

MiCA introduces a harmonised EU concept of “crypto-asset”, directly applicable in Romania from 30 December 2024. While distinguishing between utility tokens, asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens, it does not generally reclassify crypto-assets as financial instruments unless they fall strictly within those definitions. NFTs may benefit from limited exemptions but remain patrimonial assets.

From a civil law perspective, cryptocurrencies and NFTs may constitute the object of fiduciary arrangements (fiducia), security interests and enforcement measures. In principle, they may also be subject to proprietary claims, provided individual identification and proof of control are feasible. Where recovery in kind is impracticable, equivalent personal claims (e.g. unjust enrichment or restitution) remain available.

In practice, effective civil recovery depends not only on legal classification but also on technical control over digital wallets and private keys, evidentiary feasibility and compliance with publicity requirements, particularly where fiduciary or security structures are involved.

In civil proceedings, the freezing of digital assets depends fundamentally on identifying the relevant “point of control”. Where the asset is held on a custodial basis (for example, in an account with an exchange or custody platform), the most effective mechanism is a garnishment or seizure over the debtor’s patrimonial rights against that platform. Where the asset is non-custodial (e.g. a hardware wallet, seed phrase or private keys), civil law provides no technical mechanism to block the blockchain itself; measures must instead focus on physical control of the access device, custodial arrangements, prohibitions on disposal and preservation of evidence.

The principal interim mechanisms are:

a) Protective seizure: used to freeze the debtor’s assets, particularly devices or storage media enabling control over digital assets. It cannot directly immobilise tokens in a non-custodial wallet if the debtor retains the private keys.

b) Protective garnishment: the most appropriate tool for assets held on exchanges or custodial platforms, targeting the debtor’s claims or contractual rights against the third-party custodian.

c) Judicial sequestration: provides enhanced protection by placing the asset under the custody of a court-appointed administrator, especially where effective control over a device or disputed asset is required.

d) Interim injunction: a rapid and flexible remedy allowing temporary transfer prohibitions, obligations to preserve access credentials or the provisional deposit of a hardware wallet. It cannot impose irreversible measures, such as the definitive disclosure of private keys.

e) Preservation of evidence and urgent factual findings: enable the securing of evidential elements (balances, transaction history, association with a wallet), without granting technical powers to compel forced access.

f) Coercive penalties for non-compliance (following an enforceable judgment): allow the imposition of daily financial penalties where the debtor fails to perform an obligation, such as signing a transfer or surrendering access credentials. This mechanism exerts economic pressure but does not guarantee effective technical access.

In essence, civil law operates through custody, prohibitions and financial coercion rather than through technical mechanisms capable of freezing assets at blockchain level.

Identification and tracing of digital asset transactions typically begin with technical “on-chain” analysis (OSINT), using blockchain explorers and analytical tools to follow wallet addresses, transaction hashes and asset flows. While this provides reliable tracing between addresses, it does not, in itself, establish the identity of the person controlling them. The critical litigation issue therefore becomes the evidential link between a wallet address and an individual (e.g. KYC data, access logs, device evidence, banking correlations).

Romanian civil procedure does not provide broad discovery, but it allows targeted requests for specific documents, including those held by third parties such as exchanges or custodians. Courts may order disclosure of identified and relevant documents, and unjustified refusal may lead to adverse inferences. However, effectiveness depends on the claimant’s ability to identify the platform or provide concrete reference points (account ID, email, wallet address, etc.).

Preservation of evidence is particularly important in digital asset disputes, enabling urgent securing of volatile data such as account balances, access logs or transaction records before deletion or dissipation.

In practice, the most effective disclosure powers arise at the enforcement stage, once an enforceable judgment exists. Bailiffs may then request extensive information from public and private entities, notwithstanding confidentiality clauses.

At EU level, AML legislation and Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (the “travel rule”) impose traceability and record-keeping obligations on crypto-asset service providers. However, these mechanisms are primarily designed for regulatory and law enforcement cooperation, not for direct civil disclosure.

Key practical challenges include jurisdictional barriers (platforms outside Romania or the EU), evidential specificity requirements, technical obfuscation methods (mixers, chain hopping, internal off-chain transfers), data protection constraints and, critically, the speed with which digital assets can be dispersed.

Effective strategy therefore requires a rapid combination of evidence preservation, interim freezing measures (where available) and targeted court-ordered disclosure requests.

In civil proceedings, including asset recovery claims (restitution, proprietary claims, tort claims, Paulian actions, annulment actions, etc.), the general principle is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered, upon request by the successful party, to pay that party’s legal costs. This obligation does not arise automatically; it is conditional upon an express application by the successful party.

Recoverable legal costs include court fees, lawyers’ fees, experts’ and specialists’ fees, witness expenses, travel and accommodation costs, and any other expenses necessary for the proper conduct of the proceedings.

The court may reduce lawyers’ fees if they are manifestly disproportionate to the value or complexity of the case or to the actual work performed. The same principle applies to experts’ fees. Court fees and statutory witness expenses, however, cannot be reduced.

In asset recovery litigation, proportionality challenges are common, as such cases frequently involve forensic accounting reports, valuations and substantial legal work.

The party seeking costs must prove their existence and quantum no later than the close of the substantive hearing. In practice, this requires timely submission of supporting documents (invoices, proof of payment, legal assistance agreements, expert appointment orders and proof of payment, etc.).

Where a claim is only partially successful, the court determines the extent to which each party must bear the costs and may order a set-off. In asset recovery cases, this commonly arises where only certain heads of claim are upheld (e.g. restitution granted but part of the interest or quantum of damages rejected).

A defendant who admits the claim at the first hearing at which the parties are duly summoned will not be ordered to pay costs. However, this exemption does not apply if the defendant had been formally put in default prior to the proceedings or was otherwise legally in default.

In asset recovery matters, pre-action notice and formal default may therefore be decisive in preserving the right to recover costs if the defendant capitulates early.

Where there are multiple claimants or defendants, the court may order costs to be borne equally, proportionately or jointly and severally, depending on their procedural position and the nature of the legal relationship between them. This is particularly relevant in chain recovery cases (debtor, intermediaries, beneficiaries), where joint and several liability for costs may be imposed where justified.

Although not strictly a rule of allocation, it is significant in asset recovery that, during enforcement proceedings involving multiple creditors, claims representing legal costs, interim measure costs and enforcement expenses rank in priority in the distribution of recovered sums. This does not alter the “costs follow the event” principle but may substantially affect the practical recovery of costs where the debtor faces multiple claims.

Under Romanian law, there is currently no specific, standalone statutory framework governing third-party litigation funding (TPLF/TPF). In practice, such arrangements are assessed under the general principles of contract law (freedom of contract), subject to certain constraints: validity of cause, public policy and good morals, confidentiality and legal professional privilege, anti-money laundering compliance, as well as risks of conflicts of interest and undue influence over litigation strategy (particularly where the funder seeks to control key decisions such as settlement).

Accordingly, third-party funding may be contractually feasible in principle, but its legal viability depends on the precise structure of the arrangement: allocation of costs, repayment terms, entitlement to a share of the proceeds, treatment of settlement, disclosure to the funder without breaching confidentiality, and conflict management.

From a professional conduct perspective, success fees are permitted as a form of remuneration, but only as a supplementary fee, to be agreed in addition to a fixed or hourly fee (or another permitted structure). The Statute of the Legal Attorney Profession expressly provides that a success fee may be agreed alongside an hourly or fixed fee and may consist of a fixed or variable amount linked to the achievement of a particular outcome.

However, quota litis agreements are prohibited. A quota litis arrangement is defined as an agreement under which the lawyer’s remuneration consists exclusively of a percentage of the sum recovered or of the value of the assets obtained (i.e. a purely contingency-based fee dependent solely on the result). Therefore, strictly “no win, no fee” agreements based solely on a percentage of damages or recovered assets are not permissible where they fall within the definition of quota litis.

Judicial practice has frequently treated success fees as having a voluntary character and has been reluctant to shift them in full as recoverable legal costs to the losing party, particularly because they are typically payable only upon successful completion of the proceedings and are not regarded as “necessary” costs in the same sense as court fees or base legal fees.

As regards security for costs, the Romanian Civil Procedure Code does not establish, as a general rule, an obligation on a claimant to provide security merely to guarantee the defendant’s legal costs (i.e. there is no general equivalent of the common law concept of “security for costs”). Consequently, such applications do not ordinarily have a standard procedural basis in domestic civil procedure.

That said, security is frequently required in other procedural contexts, particularly in relation to interim measures (such as protective seizure or garnishment), suspension of enforcement, or interim injunction proceedings, where the grant of relief may be conditional upon the provision of security.

Functionally, such security may have an economic effect similar to costs security – insofar as it raises the threshold for access to urgent remedies – but legally it constitutes security for interim relief or suspension, rather than a general mechanism for securing litigation costs.

Upon the opening of insolvency proceedings (pursuant to Law No. 85/2014), all judicial or extrajudicial actions and enforcement measures brought against the debtor are automatically stayed. From that moment onwards, any pecuniary claim — including damages, restitution claims or Paulian (fraudulent transfer) actions — must be pursued within the collective insolvency framework by lodging a proof of claim and will fall under the jurisdiction of the insolvency court (the supervising judge).

This mechanism bars individual enforcement or recovery actions against the debtor’s estate and reinstates the principles of collectivity and pari passu treatment of creditors.

The principal exception concerns holders of proprietary rights over specific assets (ownership, mortgages, pledges, leasing rights, security interests, retention rights). Such parties may seek separation of assets or exclusion of the relevant property from the debtor’s estate, provided they can prove title (including rights in rem distinct from the debtor’s patrimonial rights). These applications are submitted directly to the insolvency judge and are dealt with expeditiously; where successful, they may result in the lifting of any seizure and the return of the asset to its rightful owner.

The right of separation (proprietary recovery or restitution) may apply to both tangible and intangible movable assets (including receivables or digital assets), provided the asset is clearly identifiable and supported by proof of title, rather than by a mere unsecured claim.

Romanian law does not recognise a tracing action in the common law sense. However, where the claimant holds a proprietary right or can establish entitlement to a substitute asset (for example, proceeds of sale), separation and restitution may be sought in order to exclude the asset from the insolvency estate. The claim must be founded on a proprietary right, not merely on an unsecured debt; otherwise, the creditor is limited to lodging a claim and participating in the collective distribution.

Where recovery in the nature of tracing is sought but the asset has been dissipated or transformed and the creditor holds only a personal claim (without a proprietary right), the creditor must file a proof of claim within the statutory time limits. Claims are examined and admitted by the judicial administrator or liquidator.

If fraudulent transactions are alleged (e.g. transfers detrimental to creditors), avoidance actions may be brought only by the judicial administrator or liquidator, not directly by individual creditors. Creditors may request that such actions be initiated and, if the insolvency practitioner refuses, may pursue them themselves only with the authorisation of the insolvency judge.

Individual actions (such as Paulian claims or nullity actions) may no longer proceed independently after the opening of insolvency proceedings, but must be integrated into and coordinated within the collective insolvency framework, under the supervision of the insolvency judge. Limited exceptions may arise where assets have been improperly excluded from the estate or where third-party good faith acquirers are involved.

Distribution of the sums obtained from the liquidation of the debtor’s assets follows a strict statutory order of priority:

• Procedural costs and preferential claims (including wages, taxes and administrative expenses);
• Secured creditors: proceeds derived from the sale of encumbered assets are applied with priority to secured creditors, up to full satisfaction of the principal and accessories, with any surplus flowing into the general estate. Secured creditors are entitled to payment in accordance with their substantive rights over the relevant asset;
• Public (state) claims and other statutory preferences;
• Unsecured (chirographary) claims: payment from remaining assets is made on a pro rata basis among unsecured creditors.

Assets which do not belong to the debtor – a where a right of separation or proprietary claim has been upheld – are excluded from the insolvency estate by decision of the insolvency judge and are not subject to the statutory order of priority.

As regards fraudulent transactions, the judicial administrator or liquidator (not individual creditors) has the primary (and in some cases exclusive) standing to bring avoidance actions (e.g. transactions at an undervalue, transfers to affiliates, transactions at a manifestly inadequate price, creation of security during the suspect period, etc.). Where such acts are successfully set aside, the asset or its value is restored to the debtor’s estate for the collective benefit of all creditors. A creditor who establishes fraud does not recover the asset individually but participates in the collective distribution. If the administrator or liquidator fails to act, a creditor may request authorisation from the insolvency judge to bring the avoidance action in its own name but for the benefit of the creditors’ estate.

As a general rule, following the opening of insolvency proceedings, all patrimonial disputes involving the debtor fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the insolvency court (the supervising judge). This includes separation claims, challenges to the schedule of claims, objections to asset realisation, disputes concerning ranking and priority, and challenges against the administrator or liquidator. Decisions are enforceable and may be appealed only by way of appeal within specific statutory time limits.

Effect of the Opening of Insolvency Proceedings: As previously stated, upon the opening of insolvency proceedings, all judicial or extrajudicial actions and enforcement measures directed against the debtor are automatically stayed. Any pecuniary claim must be pursued within the collective insolvency framework by lodging a proof of claim, under the supervision of the insolvency judge, in accordance with Law No. 85/2014. This rule reflects the principles of collectivity and equal treatment of creditors.

The principal exception concerns holders of proprietary rights over assets distinct from the debtor’s estate, who may seek separation or recovery of the asset within the insolvency proceedings, subject to the approval of the insolvency judge.

Claims Based on Proprietary Rights: Where the injured party can establish a right of ownership over the misappropriated asset (for example, property unlawfully taken, diverted or transferred without cause), it may submit a separation or proprietary recovery claim within the insolvency proceedings in order to exclude the asset from the debtor’s estate. If the asset no longer exists in the debtor’s patrimony or cannot be distinctly identified, the claim is converted into a pecuniary claim, and the creditor will participate in distributions in accordance with the rules applicable to unsecured creditors.

Personal Claims: Where the claimant cannot rely on a proprietary right but only on a personal claim (damages, unjust enrichment, restitution of financial flows, etc.), the claim must be lodged as an unsecured claim in the insolvency proceedings. It will be subject to verification and potential objection and, if admitted, satisfied on a pro rata basis after preferential and secured claims have been met.

Avoidance Actions: Insolvency law grants the judicial administrator or liquidator primary (and in some cases exclusive) standing to bring avoidance actions in respect of fraudulent transactions entered into by the debtor to the detriment of creditors, such as gratuitous transfers, transactions at an undervalue, suspect security interests or dealings with affiliates. Where such actions succeed, the asset or its value is restored to the debtor’s estate for the collective benefit of all creditors. The creditor who has identified the fraud does not obtain preferential recovery but participates in the distribution in accordance with the statutory order of priority.

If the insolvency practitioner unjustifiably refuses to act, a creditor may request authorisation from the insolvency judge to pursue the action in the interest of the creditors’ estate.

Paulian Actions Following the Opening of Insolvency: After the opening of insolvency proceedings, the ordinary civil Paulian action may no longer be pursued independently. Its function is subsumed within the specific avoidance mechanisms provided by insolvency law and must be exercised within the collective procedure under the supervision of the insolvency judge.

Claims Against Third-Party Transferees: Where the asset has been transferred to a third party, recovery through separation is possible only if the claimant can establish both the identity of the asset and the transferee’s lack of good faith. If the transferee acted in good faith, the asset remains with that party, and the victim’s claim is converted into a pecuniary claim against the debtor.

Priority: A proven proprietary right enables recovery of the asset prior to any distribution to creditors. A claim lacking proprietary basis ranks as an unsecured claim and participates in distribution accordingly. Assets restored to the estate through avoidance actions are distributed collectively in accordance with statutory priorities, without preferential treatment for the initiating creditor.

Practice shows that complex asset tracing and recovery proceedings are frequently characterised by at least one of the following structural challenges:

• Opaque legal structures, involving networks of nominees and offshore entities, which require recourse to international judicial cooperation mechanisms (letters rogatory, mutual legal assistance), entail significant costs and formalities (legalisation, translation), and offer no assurance of effective cooperation; responses may be delayed or negative.
• Limited or formalistic cooperation from financial institutions, crypto-exchanges or foreign banks, often justified by reference to banking secrecy regimes, data protection rules or alleged lack of jurisdiction.
• Restricted access to registers of beneficial ownership and other relevant asset data, particularly in light of recent European legislative and judicial developments concerning the right to privacy, which impose a stringent “legitimate interest” threshold.
• Absence of broad discovery mechanisms in civil procedure, limiting evidence gathering to specifically identified documents or information and thereby constraining preliminary investigative efforts.
• Heightened risk of rapid dissipation of assets, especially in digital or cross-border contexts, following notifications, commencement of proceedings or even informal contact with intermediaries.
• Difficulties in cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments or interim measures, including in the context of European account preservation mechanisms, where divergent local practices and limited practical experience may create procedural barriers and delays.

Taken together, the combination of limited transparency as to asset flows, non-cooperation by certain intermediaries or jurisdictions, legislative constraints and technical-procedural obstacles renders advanced asset recovery a particularly demanding area of practice. Its effectiveness depends fundamentally on swift action, a multidisciplinary procedural strategy and genuine international cooperation.

In asset recovery practice, the choice of civil cause of action and the decision to pursue parallel proceedings (civil, criminal or administrative) are primarily determined by three strategic variables: the nature of the remedy sought (recovery in kind or monetary equivalent), the evidential framework available, and the ability to secure the asset swiftly through interim measures.

Where the objective is a specifically identifiable asset, proprietary claims (such as vindication, nullity or termination) are generally preferable, as they may lead to recovery in specie and produce erga omnes effects. Conversely, where the aim is to recover the value of a dispersed asset or financial loss, contractual or tortious claims, or unjust enrichment actions, provide greater flexibility and allow enforcement against the debtor’s general patrimony.

A key consideration concerns the procedural risks arising from multiple proceedings, including lis pendens, consolidation and res judicata. Practice often favours pleading alternative or subsidiary claims within the same action, where compatible, rather than initiating parallel proceedings that may trigger procedural objections or suspension.

Parallel proceedings with criminal or administrative actions are permissible but may lead to the stay of civil proceedings. In relation to criminal proceedings, a civil action may be stayed once the criminal prosecution has formally commenced, pending the first-instance criminal judgment (subject to statutory time limits). In relation to administrative litigation, suspension may arise where the civil dispute depends upon the resolution of a prejudicial issue pending before another court.

A central strategic consideration is the binding effect of a final criminal judgment on civil courts regarding the existence of the offence and the identity of the perpetrator. This may influence whether it is advantageous to await the outcome of criminal proceedings or to proceed concurrently.

Ultimately, the decision between alternative causes of action and parallel proceedings is guided by a test of efficiency: which procedural route best secures the asset promptly, minimises evidential risk and avoids procedural deadlock arising from lis pendens, res judicata or suspension.

In recent years, asset recovery practice has been significantly shaped by judicial developments and legislative reforms at European Union level, particularly in the areas of beneficial ownership transparency, anti-money laundering (AML), sanctions regimes and cross-border cooperation.

A defining moment was the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-37/20 and C-601/20 (Luxembourg Business Registers), which invalidated general public access to beneficial ownership registers on the grounds of interference with the rights to privacy and data protection. In practical terms, this led to a substantial restriction of access to ownership information, making it contingent upon the demonstration of a “legitimate interest”. For asset tracing practitioners, this has increased investigative costs, uncertainty and procedural delays, as access to beneficial ownership data is now subject to administrative filtering.

At the same time, the new EU AML legislative package (Regulations 2024/1620 and 2024/1624 and Directive 2024/1640) marks a shift towards greater harmonisation and centralised supervision, notably through the establishment of the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), vested with direct supervisory powers over high-risk and cross-border entities. The reforms strengthen beneficial ownership obligations, interconnection of registers and rapid information exchange between authorities, with direct implications for the tracing and freezing of assets.

Sanctions regimes have also been reinforced through Directive (EU) 2024/1226, which criminalises the breach of EU restrictive measures, including circumvention through complex structures or crypto-assets. In parallel, Directive (EU) 2024/1260 on asset recovery and confiscation introduces harmonised rules on tracing, freezing and extended confiscation of criminal assets, including digital and indirectly held assets, while enhancing cooperation between Asset Recovery Offices.

In the crypto-asset sphere, Regulations (EU) 2023/1113 (the “travel rule”) and 2023/1114 (MiCA) impose strict traceability, identification and authorisation requirements on crypto-asset service providers, substantially reducing the scope for operational anonymity and strengthening the capacity to identify cross-border financial flows.

Finally, reinforced mutual recognition and cross-border enforcement mechanisms, notably under Regulation (EU) 2018/1805, together with enhanced interconnection of financial and beneficial ownership registers, contribute to an increasingly integrated European asset recovery framework.

Overall, the prevailing trend is twofold: a contraction of unrestricted public access to ownership data, combined with intensified institutional supervision, traceability and cross-border cooperation. For practitioners, this entails adapting to a more centralised, technically complex and institutionally coordinated asset recovery environment.